From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Thu Aug 23 06:03:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 23 Aug 2001 13:03:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 89283 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2001 13:02:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Aug 2001 13:02:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Aug 2001 13:02:25 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Thu, 23 Aug 2001 13:40:51 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:07:44 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 14:07:28 +0100 To: jcowan , nicholas Cc: lojban Subject: Re: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du' Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9969 #>> John Cowan 08/22/01 09:53pm >>> #Nick NICHOLAS wrote: #> cu'u la djan: #>>And Rosta wrote: #>>>1. inside ka: fill every logically-present but syntactically absent #>>>place with ce'u #>>Certainly a plausible interpretation rule. #> So "le ka ce'u xendo" means by default "le ka ce'u xunre ce'u ce'u"? No, #> that's not what you want. # #Ah. I was implicitly assuming that this rule was to apply #only in the absence of explicit ce'us. I wasn't. That caveat complicates matters. And if you want "ce'u xendo zo'e zo'e", you use du'u: "du'u ce'u xendo". I fear the dazzling coruscation of my proposal is not being adequately apprehended! --And.